"Bang $100,000 goes up in smoke..."

[Bigduke6]

Clavicula Nox,

Did it ever occur to you, even just once, that the reason Iraqis that you deal with seemed to speak English, is because the ones that didn't speak English, were doing their very best to avoid you?

This is getting to be like shooting fish in a barrel.

Think about it. I know that if there was a heavily-armed foreigner in my country, and that he could shoot me up if he got confused, and there was nothing I could do but be a target, and that for practical purposes all he could do is grunt some basic commands and there's no chance he could understand even what any 3-year-old would with ease, I would stay as far from that foreigner as I possibly could. He's ignorant, and he's dangerous.

And if the foreigner was insistent, if he really wanted to "interact", well, first I would find a relative that knew the right words to make that heavily-armed foreigner get the heck away from me. And if it were me, I would tell that foreigner whatever lie it took, to get him to leave me alone and go bother some one else.

This is human communication we're talking about. Humans do not "interact with indigidous personnel". They do not form judgements of another culture, based exclusively on what is, and is not, on sale inside the "Hadj Mart".

You are aware, of course, of just how insulting the term "Hadj Mart" is, right? Or do you think the "indigidous personnel" are too stupid to figure out that's the name the foreign troops have given to the shopping area?

Humans talk, they judge, they tell the truth, they lie, they calculate who's trustworthy, who's not, who can be fooled, and who's not. This goes at least double, and probably quintuple, in a Near Eastern nation where rule of law sucks, so the only way you can get deals done or keep yourself and your family secure, is by judging who can be your friend, and who could be your enemy.

Ability to give basic commands, is not going to get you far with Arabs. Study and integration into a foreign culture is for most people the work of years, if not decades. You are deceiving yourself if you think you can avoid that kind of homework, with a Moslem culture classes and two dozen basic phrases a decent college student could memorize in an hour or two of cramming.

Of course, given the price of tuition these days, maybe it is cheaper to just hand out Javelins to the troops like candy.

[abneo3sierra]

Clavicula, this is pointless.

You are arguing, as I did, with a person who implies you are racist for the term Haji mart..the same person defending Elmaar who posted"And all that's the cost efficiency of an army that blows the **** out of nations of little brown people on a regular basis. For nations with a lesser bloodthirst, such expenditure is perhaps prudent but wasteful too"

as if they would enjoy being termed little brown people...To get this back on topic, yes, I 100% agree with your posts. 100k is a small price in comparison to the alternatives, in any direction you want to look at it.

[Bigduke6]

Ok, fair enough, I didn't mean to badger. But I am having real trouble understanding what military effort it is, that you say has been won. The Taliban exists, Osama bin Laden exists, the country has been divvied out to the warlords, and the regime installed by the Americans has little sway outside the Kabul city limits.

I just don't get it. Are you arguiing this horrendous situation is the result of a military victory? This situation is now up to the politicians to resolve? What politicians? How? Aren't you aware that just about the only politicians in Afghanistan that count, are the warlords? Where is even the ghost of a chance that even a few of them, are going to give up the traditions of fighting and raiding and smuggling and kidnapping? Who is going to force them?

It seems to me that you are copping out. From my point of view, it seems like you have seen the limits of of a Western-style military effort to impose political will in Afghanistan, and instead of conceding the obvious: the effort was a big fat waste of time, money, effort and lives; you are saying "well, the military did great, but all these other problems, that's for the politicians to deal with."

Seems to me a very viable alternate interpetation of events is, the military went in, failed, and then started blaming the politicians while at the same time telling itself and any one else who will listen what a great job the military did.

You wrote that you read Karl the German, and old Karl bless his Prussian heart made it really clear: war is directly linked to politics, and war is only effective for a country, provided it serves a useful political end. I just don't understand how you can square Clauswitz, with yout claim "the military effort has been won."

That's what confused me. I didn't understand you actually were asserting what is going on in Afghanistan, the chaos the country is in, is the result of a an allegedly successful military effort.

As to will back home and the media, just remember, reporters report what the public is interested in. Sure, if the topic is Afghanistan then the public is interested in dead soldiers and then dead Afghans, and precious little else. The information is out there if a person wants to look, but most Americans could care less. So certainly, not so much "good news" gets reported from Afghanistan.

Of course, there is a heckuva lot of bad news also not getting reported as well. Be careful what you wish for. Don't forget that when you complain about lack of good news, better reporting would not be, overall, a very pretty picture.

There's the incredible opium output, the wholesale lack of rule of law, the clan wars, the warlord feuds, the kidnapping industry, the weaponization of the society. Just the topic "Afghan children" is horrific: dead children from bad water, the dead children from primitive medical facilities, the dead children from starvation, not quite dead children abused, etc. etc.

Corruption is another almost bottomless topic. I for one would not want to be a US regional assistance team head, and find out some US news agency was interested in seeing where all the money I have been spending has gone to. If one dollar in five isn't siphoned off, and actually goes to development projects, that would be amazing for a place like Afghanistan. The far more likely scenario - the local warlords stealing the provincial assistance team blind - is not something you'd want on the hometown evening news.

Me, I am certain that if you were to stack up the dozen schools and dams built, the two or three female soccer teams funded, and warlord's roast sheep eaten with the G-5 officers; with the unending human mayhem that is a place like Afghanistan, the bad news from a place like that would outweigh the good by a factor of about 1000 to one.

Which brings me back to US public will. The US public in my view is pretty much happy to stay ignorant on Afghanistan. They don't need the media, they don't really care about the Hazaras and the Afridis. They just want results. If the US military shows the US public success, and they will back their military.

You argue there has been military success in Afghanistan. Try as I might I cannot see it. And I think I am far from alone.

Takes more than Javelins to win a war, I think is the lesson here.

Originally posted by abneo3sierra:

Alright, Bigduke

Thank you for answering my question

for the..third or fourth time, I will answer yours..Nowhere, in any of my posts, have I said I know how to make Afghanistan safe. What I have said, repeatedly, is that the military effort has been won. This is from my first post on the topic, and continued to my last. What I have also said, repeatedly, is that the effort now, is in the hands of the politicians, both US and Afghan, to make something solid out of the sacrifice our troops gave them. I have said this repeatedly, and grow weary of it. Go back and read my posts before you insist I have not answered you.

Yes, I know Chechnya as well..wandering a bit off topic here, but that is closer to the effort, as you said also, of what I meant when I said they could have won in Afghanistan. I am in no way condemning for not winning, or for not having the "stomach" for casualties. I have seen many casualties, and in many ways am one myself. I understand that mindset. I simply was saying, the USSR *could have*won, they *could have* crushed the opposition in Afghanistan.

As for the will back home..the reporter types, with all due respect, seem to be doing their part to make sure that doesn't happen. I think, from what I can usually see, anyway, that Afghanistan is sometimes just forgotten about. The only time it shows up to the average American is when the media wants it to, as when there is a rash of casualties. It does not show up when locals cheer our troops and bring food after battles with al qaeda..it does not show up when we build schools, and the children and their families thank us because their old school was destroyed by the Taliban before we arrived, and they have gone 9 years with no school in the village. Of course, those are not bad enough to receive coverage, so amazingly, no one in the US will hear them, until their unit goes home, and the kids wonder why everyone is seeing things they never saw while they were there, and not seeing how it really was.

[Clavicula_Nox]

I used the term "Haji Mart," because it is immediately identifiable in that someone "in the know" knows exactly what I'm talking about without further explanation. It takes a civilian wanting to fight to get something hostile out of it. I, understand the importance of Hajj and know that the title Haji is one of respect and honor amongst muslims, please drop the condescending attitude.

No, I don't think people were avoiding us overly much, and neither would you had you actually spent some time there. Those that avoided us were generally avoiding us because they were up to no good, some were genuinely frightened of us for a variety of reasons, some just don't want to be bothered. They are, after all, human beings so please try not to forget that when you make blanket statements about their wants.

I would speculate that there has been quite a bit more than "a dozen schools," constructed in Iraq. I have helped with 2, sounds like abneo3sierra has done at least one, do you mean to say that we account for 1/4th of the total humanitarian projects on-going in that country?

Ability to give basic commands, is not going to get you far with Arabs. Study and integration into a foreign culture is for most people the work of years, if not decades. You are deceiving yourself if you think you can avoid that kind of homework, with a Moslem culture classes and two dozen basic phrases a decent college student could memorize in an hour or two of cramming.

This is my favorite one of yours and made me chuckle on the inside. I have quite a bit of experience in this, what do you have?Note: I don't count riding in humvees and being IED'd, I am talking about actual face-to face time with a variety of people. I know that I personally am welcome in the homes of many families in different parts of the country.

I can't say much about A-Stan, my view there was far more limited and anything I heard from others would be heresay, and while that would make it the equal of any of your sources, I choose not to stoop to that level.

I wouldn't know, I've never fired a Javelin, but I think this comment is asinine.

I know, but a hobby of mine is discoursing with the uninformed, I like seeing how we are viewed by the prejudiced masses.

I have a totally off-topic question, but do you guys jump in the 101st anymore, or is it just ropes now? Everytime I see garrison pictures of 101st guys, they're always in black berets which surprised the hell out of me, why is that?

[ March 23, 2008, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Clavicula_Nox ]

[skelley]

The fact is there probably will never be a perfect victory and maybe not any kind of sustainable victory at all. But, to say that it has been waste of time, money and lives is way off base. Doing nothing to a country that hosts a man that plots and carries out terrible attacks on people that just wanted to get up and go to work on 9/11. Doing nothing would only invite more attacks on my country and I won't stand for that. These people think that we are a paper tiger and I would prefer to prove them wrong.

As I see it we had 2 courses we could follow. 1) Bomb Afganistan until not a single living creature can live. 2) Destroy the Taliban and try to keep it from being a safe haven for al-queda. I think option 2 has been our stated goal from the beginning and in that I think we are succeeding. I have never heard anybody state that our goal was to make sure the Afganis didn't grow poppies or that we would end the tribal/warlord system that they have had forever. Does it suck balls that they won't give up these practices,,,Absolutely. But if we went in there and destroyed the poppy fields I think Big Duke would scream bloody murder that we were taking away the Afganis' ability to make a living and were in effect starving poor little brown people. The Middle East has always been a tribal system and will be for a long time to come. If we try to end that, we will become their enemy and we will be fighting everybody in the country.

The military is winning in Afganistan. They are not the decision makers, they are the ones that carry out those decisions and have done a great job at a very difficult mission. Ridding the country of the Taliban is probably impossible because it is less an organization and more an Ideology. It is not as though they were uniforms, and we can't look at a man and tell what he believes. Even after we defeated Nazi Germany, the Nazi Ideology lives on yet we don't think that we lost the war. All we can do is try to make sure that the Taliban isn't able to operate freely.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Originally posted by abneo3sierra:

the same person defending Elmar who posted"And all that's the cost efficiency of an army that blows the **** out of nations of little brown people on a regular basis. For nations with a lesser bloodthirst, such expenditure is perhaps prudent but wasteful too"

as if they would enjoy being termed little brown people...

Back off topic. I reckon they dislike being blown up even more. Anyway, if you do not know who Bill Hicks is and why he said what he did (satirizing the US history of warfare) you are doing yourself a disfavour.

And I reckon BD6 "defended" me (labelling me quite rightly as an equal opportunity offender) because large I try not make statements about stuff I know nothing about.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

But we ARE fighting the poppy (and marihuana) growing. We ARE trying to dismantle the power of the warlords in favour of the central government. And any other news source then Fox will tell you that the Taliban is having a resurgence amongst the Afghani populace. Not in small part because of the aforementioned undertakings, I might add.

The Taliban are still capable of attacks involving hundreds of soldiers at a time. Operations against the Taliban still require heavy air and artillery support. Support that's eroding Afghan support for NATO troops btw. For every battle we fight there's dozens village that never sees a coalition patrol. And in those place is where the Taliban thrives and grows

Ofcourse, it isn't all bad. From what news I can gather the ANA and police forces are actually willing to fight side by side and are given (opprtunistic) support by villagers. Not just "good on ya" support, villagers come out to fight the Taliban, especially foreign Taliban. And with the influx of US Marines (and Uruzan recently got a helping of Ghurkas) we might just tip the balance. It's winnable, more so then Iraq even post surge IMHO but sadly, it's winnable for both sides.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Clavicula_Nox:

I'm sure you don't realise, because no media reports it, but the majority of the bad guys in Iraq are not indigenous, when they were some years ago, they were the remnants of the Baath-era Army still loyal to the party.

Not true. The number of foreign fighters in Iraq never made up more than about 10% of the insurgency. link The leadership of al-Qaeda in Iraq is mostly foreign, but the rank and file are mostly Iraqi. link

Many people don't realise that S. Iraq is made up of a large proportion of ethnic-Persian/Iranians, particularly in Babil province.

Not so. Iraq is about 75% Arab and 20% Kurd. Southern Iraq is inhabited mostly by Shia Muslims who share the same religion as Iran, but they are ethnicaly Arab, not Persian. Babil province is dominated by the Dulaim tribe which is Arab (and Babil is in the center of the country which is mostly Sunni anyway).

[abneo3sierra]

Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:

But we ARE fighting the poppy (and marihuana) growing. We ARE trying to dismantle the power of the warlords in favour of the central government. And any other news source then Fox will tell you that the Taliban is having a resurgence amongst the Afghani populace. Not in small part because of the aforementioned undertakings, I might add.

The Taliban are still capable of attacks involving hundreds of soldiers at a time. Operations against the Taliban still require heavy air and artillery support. Support that's eroding Afghan support for NATO troops btw. For every battle we fight there's dozens village that never sees a coalition patrol. And in those place is where the Taliban thrives and grows

Ofcourse, it isn't all bad. From what news I can gather the ANA and police forces are actually willing to fight side by side and are given (opprtunistic) support by villagers. Not just "good on ya" support, villagers come out to fight the Taliban, especially foreign Taliban. And with the influx of US Marines (and Uruzan recently got a helping of Ghurkas) we might just tip the balance. It's winnable, more so then Iraq even post surge IMHO but sadly, it's winnable for both sides.

Fox, admittedly, is the one new source that at least TRIES, usually, to get it right.

Destroying poppy growing was never a stated objective of the operation there.

As to my earlier post, I misread yours, my apologies.

As to Iraq..it is extremely winnable. We already have it, but can lose it quite easily also.

[abneo3sierra]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Clavicula_Nox:

I'm sure you don't realise, because no media reports it, but the majority of the bad guys in Iraq are not indigenous, when they were some years ago, they were the remnants of the Baath-era Army still loyal to the party.

Not true. The number of foreign fighters in Iraq never made up more than about 10% of the insurgency. link The leadership of al-Qaeda in Iraq is mostly foreign, but the rank and file are mostly Iraqi. link

Many people don't realise that S. Iraq is made up of a large proportion of ethnic-Persian/Iranians, particularly in Babil province.

Not so. Iraq is about 75% Arab and 20% Kurd. Southern Iraq is inhabited mostly by Shia Muslims who share the same religion as Iran, but they are ethnicaly Arab, not Persian. Babil province is dominated by the Dulaim tribe which is Arab (and Babil is in the center of the country which is mostly Sunni anyway). </font>

[abneo3sierra]

Originally posted by Clavicula_Nox:

I have a totally off-topic question, but do you guys jump in the 101st anymore, or is it just ropes now? Everytime I see garrison pictures of 101st guys, they're always in black berets which surprised the hell out of me, why is that?

Well, many of our men are jump qualified, but operationally we are an air assault division, I can't imagine us jumping anymore.

The berets..hey, they look good, right?

edit: On the off chance you were not joking..the black beret is army-wide now, to erase the distinction between heavy and light forces. Not sure why they felt this to be important, it was a nice way to tell before.

[ March 23, 2008, 08:28 PM: Message edited by: abneo3sierra ]

[abneo3sierra]

BigDuke..

Sorry. I understand your point, really I do, but it starts from an error, so it will end with one, regardless. Suffice it for me to say this..

\It is not a cop out. I am not sure how else to put it..the military follows orders and operations laid down by the civilian government. We have already followed those, we have not missed anything they have asked us to do. When you achieve all of your objectives, it is a victory. It is up to the civilians in the government, ours and theirs, to come up with another set of obtainable objectives. The military does not set its own, in a free country. Many times I have felt we could do a better job if we did, but I am certain people such as yourself would not want that either. If it were up to me, we would go either 100%, or we would not be there. If it is worth a soldiers life, to me, then you should stop at nothing to win. 50% does not cut it.

However, it is not, as I have said, up to the military..that does not mean we are copping out, or we failed.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by abneo3sierra:

I find it amusing that, when it benefits them, those opposed to the war downplay the al Q/Iraq connection, and when then switch if the other side benefits them.

Huh?

And therefore, it would amaze me that somehow, while anywhere from 70-80% of tangoes we fought, were foreign, that somehow the rest of the country is only 10%...an AP reporter's story to that effect or not.

The 10% figure comes from Anthony Cordesman of the Strategy Center for International and Strategic Studies. That most of the AQI rank and file are Iraqi comes from the US military, specifically Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner. I don't have the latest numbers, but as of a year ago only about 15% of the attacks on US forces in Iraq were by AQI anyway. The experience of any one unit in any war is often not indicative of the larger war.

[ March 23, 2008, 08:32 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[abneo3sierra]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by abneo3sierra:

I find it amusing that, when it benefits them, those opposed to the war downplay the al Q/Iraq connection, and when then switch if the other side benefits them.

Huh?

And therefore, it would amaze me that somehow, while anywhere from 70-80% of tangoes we fought, were foreign, that somehow the rest of the country is only 10%...an AP reporter's story to that effect or not.

The 10% figure comes from Anthony Cordesman of the Strategy Center for International and Strategic Studies. That most of the AQI rank and file are Iraqi comes from the US military, specifically Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner. I don't have the latest numbers, but as of a year ago only about 15% of the attacks on US forces in Iraq were by AQI anyway. The experience of any one unit in any war is often not indicative of the larger war. </font>

[Vanir Ausf B]

The 10% figure was 3000 out of an assumed total of 30,000 insurgents. Of course, these are ballpark figures as no one knows the exact numbers, and they have certainly changed since then.

Glad you like the sig

[FAI]

Back on topic, rather than to waste a Jav, it would be wiser (cheaper, at least) to throw a sh!tload of RPGs at a stationary target. Or Carl-Gustavs. Or Panzerfausts. The point is, if it was bunker/building busting that you want, there are plenty of other weapons that would the job just fine with a much lower price tab.

[flamingknives]

Javelinss can be used from outside small-arms range and the CLU is an excellent ISTAR asset, so they can do things that 'dumb' munitions cannot.

It would make sense to have a second rocket nature that isn't as expensive for bunker blasting. Inertial guidance or something like that, cued by the CLU.

Or a counter-mass WOMBAT.

[Bigduke6]

What error? Educate me.

The military's orders at the outset of the invasion of Afghanistan were:

1. Destroy the Taliban

Today's reality: The Taliban is not only still around, but resurgent.

2. Capture or kill Osama Bin Laden

Today's reality: OBL is still around, he's making tape messages and, if you believe the official US military line, funding terrrorist attacks in Iraq. Even if you don't believe that, he is a terrific rallying point for Islamic militants.

3. Eliminate Afghanistan as a safe haven for Islamic militants likely to push terror.

Today's reality: Afghanistan is a chaotic, violent mess run by warlords, where poverty and ignorance is spiraling - by most standards ideal conditions for Islamic militancy.

I call that failure. The mission was not "Kick the Taliban out of office, leave them in the field, chase but do not kill or capture OBL, replace a hard-line religious regime with a vortex of chaos, throw away several hundred billion dollars, and when questioned on performance assert the awesome US military actually did its job great, continues to do its job great, and will do its job great in the future - but if there something that isn't so great, hey, that isn't the military's responsibility."

Saying "the politicians need to resolve things" when it is patently obvious the politicians are hardly capable of conducting a meeting, never mind actually coming to an agreement or enforcing it, since the country is too durn dangerous, is double talk.

It is tanamount to saying "I am pretending the politicians will fix things, when in fact they cannot, but as long as I blame the politicians I don't have to face up to the possibility the military failed to create conditions where the politicians could actually do anything."

Clauswitz again. A military is as useless as you-know-what on a boar unless it can produce political results.

One of the basic tenets of discipline is, one accept responsibility for your actions. It seems to me your thinking needs more discipline.

Following orders is not a get-out-of-jail free card. The military is an all-volunteer force.

All a soldier has to do, if he thinks the war makes no sense and he doesn't want to participate, is not volunteer.

Even when on duty, officers can resign their commissions. Senior officers can state, honestly, what the chances of success are, given a certain level of public support. NCOs can undermine just about any operation they don't like. Sure, that kind of behavior can place a career in jeopardy. However, supposedly the lives of fellow soldiers are supposed to be more important than careers.

Consider one of the greatest soldiers the US ever produced, Matthew Ridgeway. During the Korean War MacArthur egged him to take the war to the Chinese, in China, and old Matt said "No way".

Later on the civilians wanted the US to intervene militarily, to support the French in Indochina. Again Ridgeway, a serving US officer on the joint chiefs, said "No way, and if you try, I will quit."

Too bad he wasn't on the job ten years later, after Tonkin Gulf. The nation really could have used a military man like Ridgeway to say to the civilians "Woah, this is a dumb idea, land wars in Asia are stupid, not on my watch are we doing this! You get some one else to sign up for your silly campaigns abroad!"

I wonder how many of today's soldiers, have General Ridgeway's moral fiber?

Originally posted by abneo3sierra:

BigDuke..

Sorry. I understand your point, really I do, but it starts from an error, so it will end with one, regardless. Suffice it for me to say this..

\It is not a cop out. I am not sure how else to put it..the military follows orders and operations laid down by the civilian government. We have already followed those, we have not missed anything they have asked us to do. When you achieve all of your objectives, it is a victory. It is up to the civilians in the government, ours and theirs, to come up with another set of obtainable objectives. The military does not set its own, in a free country. Many times I have felt we could do a better job if we did, but I am certain people such as yourself would not want that either. If it were up to me, we would go either 100%, or we would not be there. If it is worth a soldiers life, to me, then you should stop at nothing to win. 50% does not cut it.

However, it is not, as I have said, up to the military..that does not mean we are copping out, or we failed.

[MikeyD]

Somehow this thread reminds me of the EA6B Prowler electronic warfare aircraft. The vehicle gave off such high energy transmission that in order to protect the crew the entire cabin was literally lined in gold. The visual effect was so gaudy that it earned a rather *politically incorrect* nickname.

[Clavicula_Nox]

Originally posted by abneo3sierra:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Clavicula_Nox:

I have a totally off-topic question, but do you guys jump in the 101st anymore, or is it just ropes now? Everytime I see garrison pictures of 101st guys, they're always in black berets which surprised the hell out of me, why is that?

Well, many of our men are jump qualified, but operationally we are an air assault division, I can't imagine us jumping anymore.

The berets..hey, they look good, right?

edit: On the off chance you were not joking..the black beret is army-wide now, to erase the distinction between heavy and light forces. Not sure why they felt this to be important, it was a nice way to tell before. </font>

[skelley]

I call that failure. The mission was not "Kick the Taliban out of office, leave them in the field, chase but do not kill or capture OBL, replace a hard-line religious regime with a vortex of chaos, throw away several hundred billion dollars, and when questioned on performance assert the awesome US military actually did its job great, continues to do its job great, and will do its job great in the future - but if there something that isn't so great, hey, that isn't the military's responsibility."

When did we declare victory? Are we leaving? No we are still there and probably will be there for a long time. It appears your advice your advice to any country that is attacked is to do nothing. Why? Because it is difficult? Because it is expensive? Your solution only invites aggression. It is easy to turn the other cheek when it is not your face being slapped.

I am quite sure that our failure would make many including you extremely happy. The evil United States getting what it deserves. Only time will tell whether you get to celebrate our defeat.

Consider one of the greatest soldiers the US ever produced, Matthew Ridgeway. During the Korean War MacArthur egged him to take the war to the Chinese, in China, and old Matt said "No way".

MacArthur did not have the authority to set policy and neither did Ridgeway. Here in the United States we have civilian control of the military. Maybe you are used to military coups or military control of policy but we are not.

Maybe Ridgeway was completely against attacking China, but It doesn't take much "Moral Fiber" to be against something your boss is already against. And what is so moral about leaving a war in stalemate. Are the North Koreans better off because it was left that way? Look at the difference between North and South Korea and that question is easy to answer. Maybe in your mind they are different but equal. The Chia Pet Starves his people in order to build nuclear weapons but I'm sure they don't mind because at least they don't have to deal with the evils of capitalism.

[skelley]

double post

[MikeyD]

"Maybe you are used to military coups or military control of policy but we are not."

Yeh, we just stick with good-old judicial coups.

I recall an old political cartoon from the occupation of the Phillipines drawn by Winsor McCay, a bit over 100 years ago. It showed a lanky Uncle Sam grabbing tiny soldiers by the legs and hurling them at a distant bulls-eye target with a grotesque grinning native head poking out of the center. Broken American bodies strewn around the target. the caption was "Is the game worth the penny?" ...That particular war lasted three years.

[Other Means]

Originally posted by Clavicula_Nox:

I'm pretty sure you don't understand how the military works. As an NCO, my duty is to the mission and my soldiers and undermining that mission can put them and others in danger.

Tell you what, get some facts and knowledge on the subject, then come back.

Not that I'm his mum, but BD6 was a US army intelligence officer before becoming a journalist so he might have a glimmer of how things work.

Incidentally, and I hope he doesn't mind me saying this, Elmar was in the Dutch army before being retired with wounds. So it's not as if they're either of them are unaware of the reality of service.

[Clavicula_Nox]

That's great for him, seems he forgot a few things because his statements imply the enlisted soldier has some kind of choice or that NCO's are bound to undermine missions that they don't agree with.